Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 5 No. 1, July 2015, pp. 86 - 94 CODE CHOICE WITHIN INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AMONG ETHNIC MINORITY IN BRUNEI Fatimah Chuchu Najib Noorashid Universiti Brunei Darussalam [email protected]; [email protected] Article received: 13 October 2014 Final draft received: 30 June 2015 Abstract The influences of globalisation and multilingualism have caused linguistic diversity and emergence of interesting and unique sociolinguistic phenomena, for instance, language contact in intercultural communication. As the study of intercultural communication has yet to be studied at large, this research takes the opportunity to embark on a descriptive study of code choice within intercultural communication, relating to the ethnic minorities in Brunei Darussalam. This investigation aims to identify these ethnics' preferable code choice within intercultural communication, and their needs and motivations practising those codes in a shared multilingual setting. Involving empirical investigation, this study was conducted to 60 native Brunei ethnic groups in Mukim Ukong, Tutong District. The research found code choice in multilingual settings and intercultural communications is a relatively complex sociolinguistic phenomenon, where speakers will employ different dialects or languages at an episode of communication, but still mutually understand by each other. To some extent, some speakers also accommodate their speech styles or languages to ease communication process between parties. The hegemony of globalisation, local vernacular, speakers' background and setting, among others, influence the selection of their everyday code choice. Keywords: multiligualism, code choice, intercultural communication, language contact The belief of 'a language for a people' might seem closely related to the selection of a specific code. Code outdated in today's contemporary perspective of can be referred to as a neutral term of a language, dialect sociolinguistics. As Gal (2007) claimed, contrary to or even register. Fishman (1972) suggested that code monolingualism, which had been seen as 'a natural choice is associated with the desire of a speaker human condition', recent research and findings by practising a certain code within an episode of linguists and anthropological linguists have shown that communication. Generally, every speaker has no multilingualism generates various global cultures and constraint to choose his/her preferable code when ideologies which are fundamental to language research. conversing. Nevertheless, there are certain codes that are The influences of multilingualism and globalisation have associated with particular contexts-of situation, topics, raised linguistic diversity; furthermore, they have and speakers, among others. The speech communication generated unique and interesting sociolinguistics and episodes in intercultural context normally exhibit phenomena; for instance, the language contact within interesting sociolinguistic phenomena, where they are intercultural communication. expected to apply multilingual phenomena but mutually Intercultural communication can be understood as a are understood by each other, even though they come face-to-face interaction among people of different from diverse cultural backgrounds and practise different cultures (Jandt, 1998). Based upon languages in contact languages. within inter-communication, Swann et al. (2004) In the past, the investigations on intercultural suggested contact language normally emerges when two communication have been extensively undertaken within or more speech communities within a particular place sociolinguistics study at the international level. For practise different native languages and communicate instance, the study of Gumperz(1982) investigated with each other as a mean of socialising. Trudgill (2003) intercultural communication in the main airport's has stated that intercultural communication which cafeteria in Great Britain, involving Indian and English involves two or more practices of intelligible languages speakers of different cultures. Although both speakers or codes will normally cause complication during used the same code of English, the study had shown that conversations. Nevertheless, for a certain period of time, intercultural communication could trigger certain 'intelligible' intercultural communication could become complications, as both speakers have different cultural mutual, which to some extent could instigate language perception and understanding. Goebel (2002) who accommodation, or 'koinisation' (dialect levelling). investigated a language choice of two neighbourhoods in As “language choice is a fundamental characteristic Semarang, Central Java, found that the code choices of of intercultural communication” (Tsuda, 1986: p. 69), these people are rather complex, where dialect of ngoko current study agrees inter-communication is indeed Javanese was used to signal intimate relations among 86 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509%2Fijal.v5i1.835 Chuchu and Noorashid, Code choice within intercultural communication among ethnic... Javanese, while other local varieties of Indonesia were 1961). Chuchu (2009) claimed each of these ethnic used to signal distant relationship (kromo). This finding groups has its own code and practises these languages or has disapproved the local perception of Indonesian dialects. This finding is also confirmed by David, Malay to be the main code within any inter-ethnic Cavallaro and Coluzzi (2009) who pointed out that only communication within these areas. Shaleh (2010), Dusun and Bisaya are considered as two dialects of the through his study of intercultural communication same language. However, the language of Brunei Malay between the Malays and Ibans that is based on is often used as a code for everyday communication, bilingualism perspective within a local area of Badau, whether in intercultural communication, or informal Indonesia, suggested as speakers are bilingual, the two situation. Based on previous research, it has been proven speech communities are able to communicate with each that Brunei-Malay continues to retain its force as the other by their native languages. They could simply general lingua franca among the people of Brunei (Gunn, change the code based on their needs, without any 1997). complications. David, Cavallaro, and Coluzzi (2009) claimed that This study takes the opportunity to explore the Brunei is a very diverse country with linguistic heritage, intercultural communication between two or more ethnic like the rest of Borneo. Aside of the standard Malay groups in a shared local community involving ethnic which acts as the official language, and English with its minorities in Brunei Darussalam (henceforth Brunei). instrumental value, there are other eleven languages This sociolinguistic investigation does not deliberately spoken in Brunei: Brunei Malay, Kedayan, Tutong, discuss the process of contact language, but aims to Belait, Dusun, Bisaya, Murut (Lun Bawang), Iban, embark on the identification of code choice within Penan, Mukah, alongside variations of Chinese language intercultural communication, involving certain ethnic as Mandarin, Hakka, Hokkien, Cantonese, Hainan, minorities, their needs and motivations practising such Teochew, and Foochow. Variations of languages and codes in a shared multilingual setting. Ethnic minority in dialects in Brunei are believed to have their prestige Brunei refers to the “indigenous ethnics: of Bruneians. As based upon their value and custom practices. Adiglossia for the current study, it focuses on the code choice among study of sociolinguistics phenomena in Brunei by the minority group of Dusun ethnic, as they have inter- Chuchu and Poedjosoedarmo (1995) has shown that communication with other local ethnic groups within Bruneian language practice is strongly correlated to its Mukim Ukong, Tutong District, in a daily basis. This triglossic situation, where: English language is having study is undertaken to achieve the objectives of (i) the highest prestige for its instrumental value for work identifying the code choice used by these ethnic groups in and study; Brunei Malay as a local vernacular having a their daily communication; (ii) eliciting the needs and middle prestige and; the other ethnic languages and motivations for practising such codes; and dialects are considered as having the lowest prestige. This simultaneously, (iii) identifying whether the different research deliberately suggests that every speaker has code choices through a communication episode as a part their own liberty in choosing code-choices based on their of multilingual phenomenon will cause complication or needs and motivations. misunderstanding among the speakers. Based on preliminary observation of local situation, the current study also believes that multilingual the study of language contact and intercultural phenomena exist as speakers will practise 'mutually communication has been inadequately carried out in intelligible codes'. This means that they can speak Brunei, particularly in reference to the ethnic minorities multiple languages in a speech communication between in Brunei. Karim (2005) has discussed how language participants. For instance, speaker A converses in Dusun contact happens, its culture and impacts on the to speaker B who practises Kedayan Malay, so speaker A intercultural linguistic system –. Karim discussed the will simultaneously be able to converse with speaker C process of lexical accommodation and borrowing who employs